Mistakes made in Cardiff Five case handling
South Wales Police did not deliberately destroy documents relating to the most expensive corruption trial in British history, but was hampered in recovering documents by record-keeping errors, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has found.
South Wales Police did not deliberately destroy documents relating to the most expensive corruption trial in British history, but was hampered in recovering documents by record-keeping errors, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has found.
Publishing a report on its investigation into the whereabouts of documents relating to the murder of Lynette White, which began in 2011 following a voluntary referral by the force in 2009, the IPCC determined officers were obstructed in their efforts to access information by the an inadequate records management.
An investigation into the disclosure process at the trial was also conducted by Her Majestys Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) following a request by Keir Starmer, director of public prosecutions (DPP). It found the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) also made errors in the disclosure of information which Mr Starmer accepted.
The original police investigation into Ms Whites murder led to the trial of Yusef Abdullahi, Stephen Wayne Miller, Anthony Paris and brothers John and Ronald Actie, known as the Cardiff Five. Mr Abdullahi, Mr Miller and Mr Paris were initially found guilty of the murder, but the verdict was quashed in 1992, and in 2008 original trial witnesses Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Leanne Vilday were jailed after pleading guilty to perjury.
Eight former South Wales Police officers and two civilians went on trial at Swansea Crown Court on July 4, 2011, over the conduct of the original inquiry into Ms Whites murder in 1988, but the trial was halted on December 1 that year after prosecutors formally offered no evidence, claiming South Wales Polices senior investigating officer had given instructions to shred four files of documents.
However, these documents were found on January 17, 2012, by Detective Chief Superintendent Christopher Coutts, the officer leading the review of the original murder investigation.
IPCC Commissioner Sarah Green said: I have concluded on the balance of probabilities that no instruction was ever given by the senior investigating officer, or any other officer, to destroy the documents. In fact, the finding of these documents proves the veracity of the officers accounts that the documents had not been destroyed.
However, mistakes were made by individual officers in relation to the receipt, recording and storage of the documents which meant that the documents could not easily be located.
I have concluded that these mistakes should be considered performance issues and I have recommended that three officers should receive management action regarding proper disclosure processes. However, I agreed in the circumstances including that these mistakes were made in the context of the volume of over 800,000 pages of documents required to be processed that they did not warrant formal misconduct proceedings.
Peter Vaughan, chief constable at South Wales Police, welcomed the investigations findings, adding the force had transformed its approach to major cases and would build on recommendations from the IPCC and HMCPSI reports.
It is clear from the reports that there was no misconduct on the part of officers and prosecutors who, acting in good faith, made errors which reflected the wider challenges the prosecution team had faced from the outset, he said.
The CPS and South Wales Police have worked together to address these issues and a number of recent high-profile prosecutions have highlighted the professionalism and thoroughness of our investigations. The disclosure process continues to play a key role in these cases.
Alun Michael, police and crime commissioner for South Wales and MP for Cardiff South and Penarth from 1987 to 2012, said: Through my long-standing association with this case, I believe it was a courageous and correct decision by the former chief constable to address the difficult legacy of this case and the associated allegations of police wrongdoing. These reports do not undermine that. Indeed both reports recognise the sustained commitment by Sout